Anonymous wrote: "Marianne, you may also find it of interest that Flavius Josephus records an 80-year reign for King Solomon (Jewish Antiquities 8.211). So if the year of Solomon's accession was 1007 BC (as derived from Na'aman's observation) then his death would fall in 927 BC, which year would correspond to the first year of Rehoboam's reign. That would date Rehoboam's fifth year--the year when Shoshenq I looted the temple in Jerusalem--to 923/22 BC. Assuming that Shoshenq died in early 922 BC, the synchronism with Rehoboam would date Shoshenq's raid on Jerusalem to the summer of 923 BC."

Marianne wrote: "You think it's possible that Solomon was only 14 when David died--as Josephus assigns him 94 years of life? He describes himself as a “little child” [1 Kings 3:7] although, in those times, at 14 he would not have been considered a child."

Anonymous here: Yes, I do, as this would date Solomon's birth to the 26th year of David's reign. That seems reasonable. Consider that both 1 Chronicles 22:5 and 29:1 record David as calling Solomon "young and tender." This language is no doubt a euphemism for "young and not toughened by experience," which is apt language for a fourteen-year-old heir to the throne.

Solomon's youth would have heightened the effect (or maybe relief is more likely) of his wise decision in the case of the two mothers and the one remaining son between them. And it also lends credence to the report of Solomon's legally banned marriage to the daughter of a pharaoh no less, as those who arranged the marriage might have thought the wife would exert some politically favorable influence on her young husband (leading to peaceful and profitable relations with Egypt, perhaps). But I would think Solomon married this woman probably a few years after construction on the temple in Jerusalem was begun, since that was the main focus of his early reign.

With all it entails, I did want to contribute the Na'aman solution to a rather enigmatic statement in Numbers 13:22 about the synchronism between Hebron and Zoan (i.e., between David and Psusennes I). Na'aman's solution to that enigma, as I think you agree, does fit nicely into a larger chronological context when the Josephus datum about the duration of Solomon's reign is included in the mix.

Na'aman's observation also may explain why there has been so little archaeological confirmation of David's reign. It helps when you look in the right century.

Anonymous wrote: "Marianne, you may also find it of interest that Flavius Josephus records an 80-year reign for King Solomon (Jewish Antiquities 8.211). So if the year of Solomon's accession was 1007 ... more

94 is a perfectly possible duration of life and one can't help but notice how much more reasonable the years of people on earth become with the advent of the Monarchy. Had Solomon been a myth, one... more

Marianne wrote: "It is my belief that Avaris could never be separated from an exodus in the minds of the ancient historians. Is it a mere coincidence that 1510 BCE falls within the reign of Thutmose... more

Marianne wrote: " I am of the opinion that Moses was still young in the reign of Ahmose, as Syncellus pointed out. This makes sense to me for several reasons." Anonymous: So did Syncellus get it... more

I really don't like the idea that somebody posts here without having the courage of their convictions to do so under their own name. I thought you might be a reasonable interlocutor, at first--but... more

Marianne wrote: "That's not an answer--just a patronizing lecture. Well, you'll soon learn. " Anonymous here: My answer was not meant to be patronizing but encouraging--as in encouraging you not to... more

Marianne Luban wrote: "I agree in theory but there were no such people as "Hyksos". It just means "Rulers of a foreign land" and could mean anyone from anywhere. In fact, Manetho merely referred to... more

Jon wrote: "Interestingly, all the identified Hyksos kings; Khyan, Khamudi, Anat-Her, Aper-Anat, Semqen, and Sakar-Her, used that same title (Heqa-Khaswt), except one. The only Hyksos ruler to not... more

Marianne wrote: " "XAswt", though, is a plural. It means "foreign lands" and the singular is "XAst". It would mean foreign if the throwstick was present, as it stands it just means "lands" (desert... more

I wrote: "So did the rulers really use the title "HqA XAswt", as you indicate, in the plural?" I see that this is what Bietak indicates in an abstract of a piece on the Wiley Library site entitled... more